Skip to main content

tv   Politics Public Policy Today  CSPAN  October 2, 2012 1:00am-6:00am EDT

1:00 am
>> they are the key to the solution, because they are the voters. >> do you plan to be out there frequently, in terms of your involvement with the comeback america initiative, but also when the book comes out, will you take a full book tour? >> i do not have anything planned. we will have to plan something for the book. >> if you are not reticent to get back out there? a couple of times you have said today that for somebody to take on the challenge that you took on in the 1990's, they would have to have six kan. you talked about how other politicians will come after somebody like that -- have to have thick skin. you talked about how politicians will come after somebody like that. >> that includes my children and
1:01 am
grandchildren. >> you have 16 grandchildren now. congratulations. >> i got a new one, too. >> he is dedicated to the mission. it is about the mission, not him. it is about the country, his kids. more importantly, his grandkids and the future generations. >> i want them to have the opportunities i had. i grew up until the depression. i was covered up the that the parents loved me. i always felt i was rich because of them. i finally got into the naval academy. that was a great experience in learning leadership at the finest level. i practiced it for eight years in the navy. up was lucky to get into the
1:02 am
computer business at that time -- i was really lucky to get into the computer business at that time. i started my own company and it all worked out. people bought computers but they could not use them. they could not make the software. so we would sell the whole thing. hardware, software, we operated 24 hours a day, seven days a week. that went over the world and the whistle that to general motors -- and then we sold that to general motors. then i started a new company that was very successful also. it is now a part of dell. >> are the presidential campaigns the most surprising part of your life when you look back? >> it was a tough experience. >> you can say i see what i did what i did in terms of my public education, my military service and business career but what made me decide to run for
1:03 am
president? >> this was not that rational but that was something i stuck with. if you do not have a well educated population, it is even less rational. if we can get back to a really educated population, people will do a much better time -- will do it much better. >> if we had a perot , would things be different? >> i would have made an effort. i would promise to that. i would deal with the two parties day in and day out. once you have the support of the american people, the king probably get them to agree to anything, including a bad idea. which i would not have done. someone asked one time if he
1:04 am
stood for anything -- if you stood for anything, i said i stand for reelection. [laughter] >> i think the easier question is yes because he would not does have focused on the short term. he would have also focused on the structural. our problem isot the correct deficits and debt. although they are shockingly high. the problem is what is not on the balance sheet. as a businessman, he understands that is the real problem. you have to solve that problem as well. in addition, ross perot has an incredible ability to communicate and no hesitancy to go directly to the american people. that is what we need from our president. who ever our president is.
1:05 am
we have to rally the public of around the fact that we have no choice but to make these tough races. we are going to solve this problem. are we going to solve it prudently and preemptively or for the market forces us to or will we wait for the market to force us which will be a global depression, drop tax increases. is that what we are going to do? it is all about leadership. >> the risk of some asian taking us over -- some nation -- the risk of some nations taking us over should be in people's minds here >> you are an equal opportunity critic of both parties. you -- are you aligning yourself one way or another or supporting noncandidate? >> no.
1:06 am
>> you were saying you are not support of at this point of how much effort the president or mitt romney hachette -- mitt romney has put into this so far you are not a fan of either solution? >> it is more than just them. it is the team that works with them. they have not come up with something that works. >> i think neither candidate right now has a comprehensive plan that leads the six principles we're talking about. president obama does not really have a plan because his plan is his budget but his budget was rejected unanimously by the senate and house in the last two years so he has to start over again. mitt romney has a plant -- p lan he has not provided enough
1:07 am
specifics and some of the specifics, the numbers did not at that. that is why it is critically important for both to be most pacific -- more specific, more solutions oriented in the debate so we can make an informed choice about who to support and they can claim they have a mandate. the people can then be involved to help get a fiscal burden next year. it is critically important. >> will you be watching the presidential debates? >> yes, i watched them. >> as you watch them and have watched them and you recall your own participation 20 years ago, what do you think about when you see these debates that have happened since then? >> not much. [laughter] this maneuvering back and forth. that is what i would call it. >> last question -- are we going
1:08 am
to see a third-party candidacy? a new ross perot on the horizon in 2016 or 2020? >> i am too old to do it now regret to have sons and daughters and grandchildren. -- i am too old to do it now. >> a but you have sons and daughters and grandchildren. >> i am too old to do it. >> if someone else read that kind of campaign -- >> to pick up the right person but they would do everything they can to but it. -- if we got the right person but they would butcher it. >> to give very much. >> thank you. -- thank you very much. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> we want more trade cases
1:09 am
against china in one term than the previous administration did in two. we have been winning those cases. >> wednesday, president obama and mitt romney meet in the first presidential debate. moderating from the university of denver. what and in days with our live debate preview at 7:00 p.m. eastern albay two ways to watch the day at 9:00. both candidates on-screen the entire debate and on c-span2, the multi cameron version of the debate. following, your reactions. follow our live coverage on cnn, c-span radio and online at c- >> a forum on how the media is covering this year's campaign. this hour and a half of that is from the new york press club foundation's annual journalism conference. [applause] >> thank you very much.
1:10 am
i just want to welcome you all for coming here. on behalf of the journalism institute and on behalf of nyu. we are very proud that you are here. we think the conferences and events like this are incredibly valuable. not just because they help us all survive in an environment that is constantly shifting but because they give us a rare opportunity to reflect on where our profession is going. there is a whole lot to reflect upon. we are coming off what has been dubbed the summer of sin, where jonah lair was accused of plagiarism implied -- a plagiarism and the situation in canada. it is easy to lose ourselves in
1:11 am
the individual cases of these single to analysts who are accused of fabrication or plagiarism. but we should not lose focus on what it tells about our profession and where it is going to read journalists are now expected to become -- to sell themselves to survive. i like to raise the question -- is branding oneself compatible with good journalism? >> if used to be there was a church-state wall between advertising and editorial. if you or your own advertiser, is it possible to maintain that separation? obviousquestion that's to raise -- is this any way to cover an election?
1:12 am
it is a really good question. i am sure the profession -- will start -- sparked great conversations and give as good ideas as well. this looks like a fascinating program and we're very proud to hosted. thank you very much and welcome. [applause] >> thank you very much. novelette to hand the floor over to james klurfeld stonybrook, a longtime reporter at newsday who will lead our panel -- now i would like to hand over the floor to james klurfeld, a longtime reporter at newsday who will lead our panel her >> thank you.
1:13 am
nunnelee introduce the people on the panel. michael howe, the chemical co- founder of the 4th estate project and the architect of the platform who bundled enterprises. the focus on influences him driving media coverage of the election 2012. he has a very interesting presentation to make for us. to my immediate left is amy davidson, a senior editor at the "new yorker." she has been there since 1995. next is anna sale, a political reporter for wnyc-radio. she covered the gop primaries.
1:14 am
my condolences. she appears on the brian lair show and has contributed to npr, bbc, and pbs. next to her as greg marx, co- editor of our selling state product. if you have seen his riding -- writings, he is doing some interesting commentary on how the campaign is being conducted. finally, my old colleague at newsday. a columnist at newsday and a political analyst for the fox news channel. ellis henican is the author of "home team."
1:15 am
and "in the blink of an eye." of stormyvoice i on 2021. about we will give the floor to michael howe and his presentation which will give some material to react on. it is all yours. >> thank you. i am happy to be here. i would like to think -- thank aj for inviting me. we are analyzing election from a data perspective. we believe that we are going from the perspective of data being apolitical. we are measuring influence, the amplification of media and
1:16 am
sources and journalists with in the election coverage. we have a unique methodology by which we are doing that measurement. be in just of the traditional print and broadcast. on the video shot -- on the radio side, we are adjusting npr. we have a unique processing methodology whereby we capture all of the quotes in the incoming content, a source -- assign a source and discard the rest of it. we are deciding it topic to each of those, a perspective, whether pro or anti or neutral. which the great majority of the content is.
1:17 am
we are also assigning whether they quote is about mitt romney or president obama. hopefully that gives you some what of a sense of our methodology. we only have several minutes so i want to go through a number of screen grabs. we are publishing a fraction of the data. we can collect this data and create thousands of little pictures of what we are doing. we can cross, do cross analysis of all the data points we are grabbing. we can look at what the mitt romney campaign is talking about, what their messaging is. what is the perspective of what they are doing? i thought the best use of my time would be to jumping in, sure you a number of these pictures. this is the platform that we
1:18 am
create these digitalizations of. here is basically when the white house officials for the president obama campaign staff are speaking. this is the topics they are speaking about and this is the perspective or the sentiment that those quotes are about. it is a little bit of a -- people think mitt romney is focusing on the economy. he's actually focus more on his own economy and obama and his staff has spoken more to the message of the economy. you can see he is talking somewhat positively about his programs but also talking more negatively about mitt romney in
1:19 am
terms of the economy. when he is talking about character, he's got some very negative on mitt romney as opposed to speaking up his own character. i will show you the equivalent of that in mitt romney. mitt romney is spending more time talking about his character. he is splitting his time between promoting his character and making negative statements about president obama's character. the interesting thing about this chart is that not only is the economy, is he talking less about the economy than what pulled -- than what people believe he is doing what he is also focusing more negatively on obama when speaking then he's been positive about putting forth a plan of his own.
1:20 am
i think he listened to the right wing pundits to much in terms of saying this economy will be about why obama as fat as opposed to what i have to offer the country. but that is just me -- why obama is bad as opposed to what i have to offer the country. but that is just me. this is when people are talking about obama, they are talking mostly about the campaign in the economy. they are being more negative than positive overall as you can see with the-versus the positive here. i will show you one more. this is the lee are talking about mitt romney. this is the topic we did when they are talking about mitt romney, the are talking about these messages and this is the
1:21 am
sentiment embedded within that topical discussion. i love to go on and on showing you pictures but you can basically do an amazing number of things with that platform in terms of looking at various formulations and cross the slicing of data within the methodology i said before. we are also one of the more interesting things that we are able to do is look at this over time. here you are looking at how the economy, the message of the economy, has gone over the course of the campaign. i am showing you economy but i brought in entitlement. there was a discussion of entitlement in the wake of paul
1:22 am
ryan's vp selection. and the floor policy -- there was a spike and mitt romney went abroad -- the foreign policy, there was a spike when mitt romney went abroad. i believe aj invited us here and our job is to keep everyone here on the panel on this. >> think you're a very interesting. as our panelists make their presentation, maybe it least two items i thought would be interested to adjust -- the very interesting article and book out now by sasha eisenberg about the fact that the press cannot keep up with political consultants and social that parking experts.
1:23 am
reporters basically are way behind the curve in this campaign. we think that is an interesting topic to take a look at. as well as the fact that in a wave of reporters, my impression is it looks like both candidates have succeeded for the most part in talking over the press, especially the traveling press, and making them almost irrelevant to the campaign. let us start off with amy davidson. >> can everybody hear me? i will start by addressing what he does talk about a little bit. even in the title of the panel,
1:24 am
is this any way to cover a campaign? there is somewhat of a note of this may which i think -- dismay, which i think a lot of people feel about what the coverage has done and the campaign looks like to the media. this idea that it is going on elsewhere and reporters are missing the story. i would like to be a little more optimistic about that. i read the eisenberg article which was fascinating. there is a lot about the horse race and how reporters are looking at one place, the political consultant fine-tuned and figure out exactly which of voters to speak to end in which ways. and a way of using language that reporters were not hearing and talking to audiences that reporters were not recognizing. which is something for reporters to get on and learn about and
1:25 am
decipher. the thing that gave me pause in the article was there is a lot about how brilliant the people running the campaign were. how they were grand masters at a time when reporters following them were just kind of amateurs. at the same time, if you look at the campaign, it does not seem to be being run by geniuses. on either side to reduce the lot of mistakes. i am not sure if the grand masters of chest are the ones sending mitt romney to say certain things are do certain things or four president obama for that matter. there is a lot of mythologizing and there are a lot of mistakes. sometimes you wonder if the campaigns are keeping up with reporters because these campaigns have been surprised aloft. i think that is partly because
1:26 am
the traveling press is not the only press. i thought a lot of people thought mitt romney on 60 minutes when he was asked about whether the response to the video that mother jones found of his 47% in march showed that his campaign was troubled and he said it is me, it is not my campaign. for all that we hear about campaigns and the billions and the analysis, there's still some much to do. and so many ways to catch up and talk to them. i think this is an exciting time and an exciting election cycle to be optimistic for a second. there are some immortals -- sop many more tools.
1:27 am
the idea that even as a much money is being spent, there is also a new focus on it. the time has really serious discussions about polling methodology. there are so many different directions things are coming out. there are also of course social media and the way things are -- the way people are following it. there is a lot of information on the table from a lot of different directions that has not been there before. reporters are trying to sort it out and try to figure out what a reporter is. i do not think that it -- that we are doomed in that way i was watching cnn the other day and mitt romney was being asked about something and the interviewer said but you have a pants on fire for that, referring to the fact checker rating for something he said. i thought even 10 years ago, he showed that clip and a reporter
1:28 am
saying you got a pants on fire, that would sound like he was saying something from kindergarten to him. those ideas that have really entered the lexicon, i think that is a good thing. to be pessimistic, there are so many media outlets that the canada that have responded by saying a lot of things that are candidates tht that the have been responding by saying a lot of things that are not true. both campaigns -- the mitt romney campaign in particular has said in the last few days that during the debates, they will fact check lies. in which sometimes can mean saying something is not true when it is true or sang
1:29 am
something is true when it is not true. i think that because the speed has increased, there is a lot more for reporters to do. about money issues and spending in keeping an eye on that. i think there are some great works being done tracking spending but there's also a lot more money on the table because it is citizens united. that is a real challenge. in some ways to bring the optimism and pessimism together about this, i think this might be the election cycle where both sides, it has become clear what the tool or for both sides. there is money, there is media access, there is social media. there are ways to quickly get information out and really ask questions. in the last few weeks before
1:30 am
people vote, we are going to see how well each side uses those tools. although i do not know we will fully realize that until the next election cycle. until the next election cycle. when i talk about each side, in this case, i mean the press and the candidates, even though that is not the most natural way to talk about an election. you think of the two sides in the election being the candidates, and yet, that is not the full story of an election, and on the other hand, just to go back for a second, i do think the press, in taking on the candidates, can call the right and wrong and the correct and the incorrect, and i hope there is a lot more of that, and i am probably running out of time.
1:31 am
i will say that on the optimism front, can anyone imagine during the kennedy-nixon debates that we would all be watching it with twitter, that there would be fact checking, that there would be conversations going on? hearing him on the radio, he sounds a lot better. or anything like that. i think this is a great time for political coverage, and i hope that that turns out to be true in the next few weeks and that we do not instead see some degraded moments of politics, but i think it is going to be fascinating. >> thank you. do you want to pick up? anna? >> i am, again, anna sale, and
1:32 am
i think what is most prominent is what we think about is who is winning, and thirdly, where is the race taking place, and that is what we are looking at, swing states, and that is where a lot of my reporting has been at over the last six months. we are clearly -- radio. voter voices is a big driver of how we want to cover the election, so we started a series this summer called "that is my issue," and with that, we are hearing what the candidates are focusing on, trying to get people to not just think about the economy because that is -- kind of tell the story of what
1:33 am
in your life is making that a driving issue for you. maybe is stem-cell research, things people are not talking about -- maybe it is a stem-cell research. -- it is stem-cell research, things people are not talking about. new york is not a swing state. caller: -- we try to look at issues and try to dig a little deeper, and the swing state coverage, listening to the stories of voters, how they are experiencing the election, so i just want to return to sasha
1:34 am
issenberg. they may not necessarily turn out in cleveland, which is the way reporters talk about it, for example, but i just want to make sure that we are looking at demographics and geography as a way to frame storytelling and reporting, because that is where a lot of interesting data is, and the first question i wanted to ask myself, looking at ohio, looking at colorado, how do we break out? the different voting groups -- how do we break out who the different voting groups are,
1:35 am
etc., looking at who turned out in whi counties, looking at how voter-registration trends changed, where independent voters are surging, and looking at voting trends in a particular county. so, for example, which counties in colorado switched from 2004 to 2008, from george bush to obama in 2008, and then using that framework. i did a road trip over the summer stopping in colorado, iowa, later florida, and with that kind of baseline knowledge of the voters i was looking for, where are the places to go, and then it was just a man on the street on steroids, -- it was
1:36 am
just man on the street on steroids. people going about their daily lives. what were the stories they were paying attention to, what they were not paying attention to, and from that, i kind of met some characters that i have returned to and look back -- that i have returned to and looked at, and i would think that this was completely anecdotal. i think it is valuable to hear those voices. they are voices we do not quite hear enough. the follow-up calls or the voters to turn out at rallies
1:37 am
because the reporters get one or two urgency bites before they get back on the bus or on the plane -- reporters get one or two juicy bites. i welcome any thought about how to make it better or less anecdotal, but the one question i want to make sure we get to is the question of convention, because that is the place where i think there has got to be a better way to cover this election. the particular political parties expressed their self identification. i do not think that is the way voters actually experience the convention, so we talk more about that. >> some relatively optimistic
1:38 am
views, but i do not think is a coincidence that npr and "the new yorker" are two of the best in covering the campaign. so many good points can be made. let me make two points. first of all, in the conventions, a number of years ago, i think it was probably back in 1988. i was on the floor at the democratic national convention, and i had my notebook in my hand and went to interview people, and i said, "what am i doing? i am a prop in a television show. -- show."
1:39 am
the other question i think we can deal with is whether the issues really get covered by political reporters. when i was in washington for 10 years, i covered national security matters, but the one thing that i found was that the political reporters were experts on what? on politics. on the strategy of the campaigns. even when people start to talk, reporters start to write about issues, i find that what they are writing about his strategy in terms of the politics as opposed to going into the issues, so we may want to talk about that a little bit more. greg marx, your return. >> i am a co-editor of our swing
1:40 am
states project. nine swing states around the country who are monitoring for the most part local coverage. newspapers and television, for the most part, so i edit that crew, and i also write a bit. i would like to also make an optimistic point. his stuff is pretty fascinating, issenberg, and i think a big thing to take away is that there is a lot of lazy analysis that makes its way into much political journalism, even like
1:41 am
regular news accounts, and is useful to remember that we do not know as much as we might think we know or that we might be sort of operating on received wisdom that does not hold up or has not been tested. at the same time, i think amy makes the right point. there is a sort of gee whiz aspect. humility, do not assume that the campaigns are experts at this either. at the conventions, the conventions are not news events. they are political ritual. there are the campaign's, and
1:42 am
then the parties to present themselves to the country. -- there are the campaigns. the messages that the parties are offering. we have lots of time to say our peace -- piece. people are at times expected to listen to what the candidates have to say, but i want to pick up on one particular sort of spread of optimism which came up a bit in amy's comments. the dedicated fact checkers,
1:43 am
like, they are good. to a greater extent, their work is being reflected in a lot of mainstream coverage, for lack of a better word. the paul ryan speech was picked over. a lot of it was in the second- day stories, but there were the very misleading or untruthful things that he said. one writer got a lot of attention a bat and inaccurate
1:44 am
claim being presented in a speech. -- a lot of attention about an inaccurate claim being presented in a speech. what are some of the ways to be presenting the political rhetoric? we see that shift to some of the stuff we post on our side, -- site. the most effective and responsible ways to do in fact checking for journalists. there are some -- i think there are some flaws here.
1:45 am
over the course of the next week after the paul ryan speech, people were taking things out of context, claiming he had said things he had not said, sort of branding him like a liar on his forehead. al gore got a big liar stamp on his forehead. on balance, i think this is a good and encouraging thing. we see it as we monitor coverage around the country. local television, one might argue, has a particular responsibility, as the vehicle through which most of the political advertisements are being aired, but i am struck by
1:46 am
how they deal with the responsibility for this, some of the fact checking or claims that use me. it is actually better than i would have expected. to make a more pessimistic point, what i do not think the media has been able to do is -- i think the attention and the scrutiny to the rhetoric has increased. there is either an unwillingness or inability to move the agenda of a campaign in a more fruitful discussion, and we saw some of that in michael's presentation in the beginning. we basically have mitt romney try to let the economy do all of the work for him in the
1:47 am
beginning, and then more recently i think defending the attacks on his character, and you have obama basically saying, "romney is a terrible rich person who fires people." there is a journalist at "the national journal" that i it meyer, and neither of these campaigns are offering anything in terms of near-term relief for the millions who have been out of work for quite awhile. there is a lot of talk about deficit and long-term growth. the subject of long-term unemployment has virtually disappeared since obama decided to abandon the stimulus, and i
1:48 am
do not think in my ideal media world -- the media would be more effective at moving issues like that back on the agenda. >> ok. pessimistic and all of the things that they have a hard time being. i thought we were famous for complaining all of the time. one or two notes before i get to the awful stuff. first of all, it is truly uplifting, i think everyone would agree, to see so many people turning out on an early saturday morning when you could be doing other things. there has to be a rerun of "
1:49 am
housewives of orange county," or sipping cappuccinos, rather than talking about this. as someone who has knocked around in for a few years, it is truly cheery to me to see that passion out there and that you have voted with your feet in such numbers, so thank you all for making me feel good. as i look across the coverage of this campaign, there are a few things i think are worth pointing out that have not been addressed yet by members of the panel. first of all, media coverage in 2012 is most distinguished by its enormous deep. there is just a huge amount of coverage out there.
1:50 am
when i cover campaign events, but there is just a ton of different types of people. there is the traditional print media that i came out of and still have 1 foot in. television coverage this so much more than it ever did back in the days of the three networks. when you throw in the websites and the bloggers and all of the people hiding in the back of a room with an iphone camera and 50 varieties of journalists and pseudo journalists that did not exist before, it is a phenomenal amount of coverage. some of it is stupid. some of it cannot believe in any traditional way, but some of it is really, really good, and even if you are halfway smart as a
1:51 am
news consumer or a journalist seeing what other journalists are doing, there is great stuff out there. some good examples have already been mentioned, such as the fact check stuff. when jim got started, when the press corps was basically a few. you had the fat guy, the skinny guy, and then the guy from mississippi, who was a great guy, but you could not understand a word he said. those days, there were good people doing it, but it was like a club, all done from one perspective, and there was not nearly as much of it, so we benefit from that, but at the same time that has happened, the
1:52 am
coverage has gotten increasingly tribal. by that, i mean is truly possible now -- this was true 40 years ago, you can watch, read -- 24 hours a day and never hear a thought you can disagree with. there are a bunch of places you can go if you are a conservative, and a bunch of places you can go if you hate them all. and never, ever have to have the psychological discomfort of hearing something you do not agree with, and we are to blame for that somewhat. we have set up a hierarchy, where the fame and money and the attention goes to people who express opinionated views, and
1:53 am
my own career is an example of that. i started as a newspaper reporter covering campaigns, and i still do some of that, but i found out it is a lot more fun to go on television and argue with bill o'reilly or some pissed off blond woman in a miniskirt. it is more gratifying, more fun, and you make more money at it, and you have more influence in the world. we create a situation where many of the great practitioners have been drawn into this subset of it, where all of the goodies are, but none of the basic core work is. the results are bad. they are bad for us and the country, and they treat a situation where most americans are able to have their own prejudices confirmed time and
1:54 am
time again. right now, the republicans suffer from it, but the democrats will again, i promise you. all of the polls are wrong. you cannot believe the polls. they are skewed. the pollsters have all gotten together, including the pollsters at fox news, where i have spent some of my time. they can too many obama lubbers and too few romney lovers, thereby creating the impression that the election is over. that is crazy. that is not happening. there might even be some things wrong with the polls, but believe me, it is not that. but when we have a media where people only talk to others that agree with them, that doubles up. we have reporters and find that
1:55 am
those are more interesting and satisfying paps to follow, -- paths to follow. those of you in the i.d. listed parts of your careers, go out and cover stuff. do it in a factual way. learn the lessons that were shouted at me when i was a kid about giving the other side. showing up, all of the basic skills that make this work. you saw the effect over at mother jones, going out and finding a tape, jimmy carter's grandson got it from some other guy, truth shoe leather journalism. it changed election 2012 in a
1:56 am
way more than any bloviating pundit did. >> will you express your opinions next time? before we get to questions from the audience, which we want to do, the measure we use for news literacy for consumers is to say when you read a story or a see a story on the internet, can you make a decision or come to a judgment based on the information you have gotten from that story? we would like to see another panel feels about that measurement in terms of the presidential campaign. are we giving people enough information so they can make an intelligent choice about who to vote for. -- about who to vote for?
1:57 am
>> if the question is just an intelligent choice about him to vote for, there was something interesting about the question of who is going to win. for example, one area that i think we can be a little pessimistic about is foreign affairs, where you can read something about libya, say, reporting about how maybe obama administration -- especially if you do not already like obama, maybe that will help inform your choice of whether to vote for him, but not, it seems lately, because it has given you the information or the tools to think about what ought to happen in libya or what our policy in libya ought to be.
1:58 am
we have soared to come to present foreign policy coverage as character coverage. i think that those categories in a way get confused. you have separated them out. are we learning about the world when we read that article? or are we learning that romneycare is about the little guy or whether obama is brave? i think it is a tricky question, because you might, indeed, get information you feel you need to vote for this person or that person, but there is also the other legal issue about learning about what the article is ostensibly about, what are the actual problems in the world beyond the election, what they might be, and i do not think that the character thing is negligible. it is important if somebody cares about the little guy.
1:59 am
that is crucial. and about how they see the world, but i wonder if the article can succeed on those grounds and also failed drastically -- failed -- fail drastically. how we might make decisions that affect people's lives, not just here but in other countries, as well. >> every article could repeat that mitt romney has not given details of his tax policy or how he wants to comprehensively address immigration, as he is criticizing obama for doing it piecemeal. he is not telling us the policy details as he is criticizing president obama. part,or president obama's
2:00 am
the press could be better at saying that this is where the house republicans blocked you on x, y, or is a -- y, or z. how will you get around them prove there are many important questions that the campaigns are not answering. -- how will you get around them? there are many important questions that the campaigns are not answering. >> yes. the vast majority of people are partisans of one sort or another. i doubt there are many undecided voters in this room. and they get the information they need to make a choice. they probably do not even need
2:01 am
to read that many news stories. it is clear what the core value is. they represent those parties. most people paying attention can make the choice, and those not paying attention are not reading the news stories darrick closely. but campaign coverage means to -- reading the news stories very closely. but the campaign coverage needs to do more. there are all sorts of interesting and important things in the world, whether it is foreign affairs or the ins and outs of domestic policy or the choices we are facing. to try to at least force politicians to address those issues because we still have,
2:02 am
god bless, like the convention -- the canada at some level needs to be responsive to the media, and it looks bad for them when they do not, even if i doubt they lose that many votes in the process. >> one quick thing. you are absolutely right about that. no minds are being changed here, no matter how great this coverage is. very few minds are being changed. even though it seems to be swinging dramatically, it is just two or three percentage points. to me, the challenge is -- you are right. it is a special moment because people are paying attention. to me, the challenge is how do we make our work interesting enough, compelling enough that people knew are not otherwise inclined to follow it are drawn to it because it is so great,
2:03 am
and most of us fail at that. you look at the people who read newspapers, and if we look at the numbers of who watches, we could all feel like failures, but there has got to be away, if we are just good enough at it, that we can make people who start out not caring, how we can make those people care. if we have done that just a little bit, we should feel good about ourselves. >> i will disagree. i think it is wrong to think that minds cannot change. a not so narrow issue like gay marriage, and you see how very quickly minds do change. people with very set, partisan views. there was something you talked
2:04 am
about, which is narrative and storytelling and the power of that, which is something that journalism can do. if you look at each party now, they are not the same party they were 10, 20, 30, 40 -- people changed their minds. journalism does have a role in that. part of it is our electoral college. these states are not going to change. they are not going to change in one column or another. but are the people in the state listening? are there different views about the poor or war or gay marriage? i think that does happen, and i think that is something we should not forget, that there is a conversation going on and an
2:05 am
important one. >> i spoke earlier about how i would like the press to force certain issues about the agenda, and the reason for that is i do not mean that the media cannot make any difference. of course, the media can make a lot of difference. i just want to clarify. to draw a sanction -- a distinction on election they will be driven by a underlying issues, and understanding of the world, tons of different important issues. >> we have also been talking about this election so far as if there were only two candidates
2:06 am
and one race, and it is happening -- it is a big congress. there are a lot of mayors. there are a lot of governors. there are a lot of crucial issues that are going to shape state legislatures. they make decisions about people's lives in their states. there is a lot going on. >> very quickly. >> you are absolutely right, and we have been focusing too much on the presidential election, and we should focus much more on the congressional issues and the state-level issues, because those are the ones where people are more likely to be looking for information to help them make decisions. >> ok. let's turn to the audience now and see what questions you have. please stand up. do you have a mic?
2:07 am
go right ahead. >> just a quick preface to my comment. i am a former u.s. department of state foreign service worker, which has given me an interest in what the heck is happening with my country. i am a freelance op-ed writer, a press club member, who is a republican in harlem. here is my comment. i just want to commend amy and anna for their comments. i like to see and it reads comments from people of color.
2:08 am
-- i like to see and read comments from people of color. we do not get a free range. and just a quick plug. i would like to say that i am a time warner shareholder, and i just want to hear the news. i do not want to your editorial. my favorite purveyor is an all news radio station. they just give you the straight news, all -- no frills. just give us the straight news. >> thank you. over here. go ahead. >> hi. i am -- mostly a drama reviewer now. what difference does all the
2:09 am
brilliant cut bridge in the world -- what difference does all the brilliant coverage in the world make it people are not allowed to vote? courts are overturning it. it is on this uncounted, uncommitted vote that this election could turn. >> is it your view that it has not been covered? >> it has not been covered at this panel. voter suppression has not been covered. it is not an election if people cannot vote. >> the issue is has no immediate given sufficient coverage to this, and years ago, the news
2:10 am
almost missed that one third of the electorate would vote before election day. it seems to me there has been an awful lot in the news about voter suppression. >> i wrote something yesterday about voter suppression, and i feel good about that. voter suppression and voter fraud, we have talked about it a lot. it is a little bit like the nfl refs. there was a lot of unhappiness about. the real referees were on strike, and they brought in scab
2:11 am
referees, and there was an unhappy tolerance. one coach grabbing the arm of a substitute official. but there was not really a time when they said they had to sit down and give its settled until there was one game that blatantly went the wrong way because of a ref's call. our most important civil-rights is voting. it is what everything else relies on. this is not a casual thing. even if it does not turn an election. in a state that is solidly blue or solidly red -- whether or not it changes the outcome. as with the nfl refs, it did get
2:12 am
settled very quickly after everybody on national television saw a game go the wrong way, and, tragically, it may take something like that for voter i.d. and voter suppression to get the attention it deserves. >> michael onesteel joined in. -- michael wants to join in. >> i have no idea what the right percentage should be, but it is under 1%. another topic that is way down that we believe should be more of the coverage is money in politics, the fund raising. it is just a sliver of the percentage. one of the things we are trying to do with our project is to
2:13 am
bring awareness to these types of issues from a data perspective, so it is not just anecdotal. i think we all know about it, but is it being given enough percentage of coverage is i think a legitimate question. >> or what i think i notice, maybe even in the question, it is an ideological question. voter fraud. in my view, it almost hardly exists. there is a deep uproar over the threat of voter fraud. on the left, you're concerned about voter suppression, and there are some rhetorical arguments, connecting it to the civil-rights movement, and it has a connection to the people
2:14 am
most likely to be suppressed are the ones most likely to vote democratic. let's be forthright about the actual, real-life political ramifications. in is not just a philosophical conversation. -- it is not just a philosophical conversation. this could affect who wins the election. >> i am with the 4th estate. i am the one you analyzes our articles and puts together our data, and i can say, in the last two weeks, i have seen a huge increase in the voter suppression topic. he was just saying it is an ideological conversation for
2:15 am
them in terms of keeping those people out of voting, but also for radio coverage, they have been turning it over to citizens and asking those demographics how they feel about it, so i can agree that i have not seen any concrete how is this going to affect things in november. >> i have got two questions back to you. what is the percentage of coverage? i think ellis' point -- have both sides been addressed? >> i would say for the left, it has been big.
2:16 am
there was some coverage concerning the obama administration trying to change the regulations for veterans, and they basically wanted to give the voting rights of veterans -- they wanted to make them the same as everyone else, and that caused an uproar. >> 5% of the coverage? >> it is small, but it is rising. >> wcbs news radio. pre-election polss. i eat -- polls. i have been wondering why they need to know why they -- need to know how other people will vote.
2:17 am
why do we report preelection polls? >> i think it is a way we engage the narrative of the race, but i think you are right and that it affects voters. i was in virginia, talking to people in prince william county, and republicans who voted for mccain were saying, "i do not know if romney is going to win." a sense of not wanting to vote for a loser. it does affect some voters. >> on the other hand, it can be a moment -- earlier in the election cycle, where you say that guy that i thought did not have a chance, i am not the only one who likes him, and maybe he can get the nomination. obviously, we are curious.
2:18 am
we want to know who is winning, but we also want to be part of a conversation with other people and know what other people are thinking. i am not sure that is such a bad thing. i do not know that needs to be put in isolation before we vote. >> it is an easy way to inject drama today into something that is not going to happen for months and down the line. it is pretty sleazy journalism, but it is probably no worse than going to a speech and writing down what the guy says. >> it is good information to have, as a journalist, if you are looking at whether things work, whether people were impressed, whether people are willing to, say, four years ago
2:19 am
to vote for a black candidate with a funny name for president, and early on, polls gave some indication that maybe they were, and there were some the thought that never could be possible. i think polls are part of journalism and can be valuable tools. otherwise, it is guessing often. talking about winning or who has a chance. then you fall back on a and -- on an idea that is almost lazier of who can and cannot win. >> the polls are a snapshot in time and not really a predictor of who is going to win, so many media outlets because it is there, and it is easy, they run
2:20 am
them on the front page. that is where i raise a question. michael? >> i have a cynical view on this. journalism is a business, and you need to put out a daily product. go with the poll story. >> ok. over here. >> i wanted to bring together some of the three different points that have been raised. people talk about i am not going to vote for this guy because he cannot win. i hear people say this about the electoral college. "why should i vote because my vote does not have any say because somebody else will vote for me?" and then in another context, we
2:21 am
brought up that the nfl decided to settle with the refs because there was a bad call on national television. i think there was a bad call on television years ago with the electoral college. do you see any discussion about making a constitutional change prove this is a sophisticated group of people here. we watch things and read things and go online. we are probably online now. there are a lot of people who do not get it. they say, "it does not make any difference if i vote." they will go to the polls and vote for a their local items, but they will not vote for president -- and vote for their local items, but they will not vote for president. >> this is an issue that is very
2:22 am
near and dear to his heart, and i think he would want me to say that there are ways to address this without amending the constitution. there is a way to do it by congressional district that he would explain much better, but we have settled into a way of doing the electoral college, and maybe there are ways we can look at it. there are some states that divide their electoral votes. i do tend to think it is still worth voting. >> i agree with that, but i think reporting that would be helpful to a lot of folks, because i do not think there is a basic understanding particularly on what it means and why it is important. >> you are both working on swing
2:23 am
states. we probably have all felt swing state jealousy and that lack of attention. in a way, it is encouraging because there is jealously, because we would like to feel like we are engaged and involved. >> amy, we would be inundated with commercials if we were a swing state. it would be coming out of our ears. >> those commercials hire a lot of people. >> there is an idea where if you can get the states that would
2:24 am
total 270 electoral votes, which is what you need to win, to sign a pact to agree that they would vote for the guy who got the highest popular vote, it would be a way around trying to get a constitutional amendment, which is exceedingly difficult and unlikely. >> i would just add in terms of the swing state coverage, one of the failures this election cycle is we reporters have done our sort of policy impact reporting too much in terms of the obama administration's record. how it has affected the ohio economy. but we have not heard much about agricultural items in nebraska. i have not looked up the unemployment rate in any of the states. swing states. iowa being pretty low.
2:25 am
i think we could do a better job with more policy coverage. >> over here? >> wcbs. question colleague's about the polls. it is like going out to dinner. inevitably, somebody will ask everybody else what they are eating before the order, and then there is always someone who will not reveal what they are going to order. somebody mentioned debate, and this really has not come up here. what the impact of the coming debate will be. secondarily, when you talk about the major media, do you think that the coverage, and i am using this term that one network has used, it "fair and balanced
2:26 am
-- used, "fair and balanced" to both candidates? >> one of the good things about polls is that that can track things over time. if you go back to pass presidential campaigns, the polls do not move very much during the debates. the conventions, those moments when the candidates get up and give their big speech to the country, that tends to be the period when the polls kind of start to get locked in, which is not a good sign for romney at the moment. there can be exceptions, but my sense is that the media tends
2:27 am
to overplay the electoral significance of the debates, and the value of the policy explanations we get most of the time, as well. i do not know. fair and balanced is kind of a tricky question. we have run some things that i have edited about, essentially, the flood coverage of romany -- romney. he has not, legitimately, as anna talked about, even with the standards of a modern politician a lack of policy in his policy agenda. he is basically on apologetic
2:28 am
about it. -- unapologetic about it. i would love to see the press beat up on him every day about it. at the same time, there has been a character logical -- characterological issue. some do not like him much. >> ask your questions, and we will deal with them. >> as you have mentioned, we need to make news interesting and attract readers, but you
2:29 am
also mentioned that everything has been covered by everybody's sometimes, so for journalism students and freelancers, what can we do to add to the reporting that has already been done by major news outlets? >> first of all, what was said by david about going out there and doing the reporting, i do not think everything has been reported. there is a lot out there to talk about, and this goes back to the earlier question about fair and balanced and also to something you said earlier. there is so much now, but a lot of it, as you said, you can feel like you're really on top of everything and read everything and be super well informed.
2:30 am
in a way, there are two jobs. there are a lot of jobs. in terms of what you're talking about, one is to do the essential ground-level reporting. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] the other is to make the other is to make sure there is always a consenting voice. >> one other thing. a presidential election may not need to write this territory, either. it is kicked over pretty heavily at this point. when i was getting started, we all wanted to work in big cities and work for famous news organizations. in the end, when i look back in my own early career frustrations, the best thing in the world for me was going out and being a star. build my confidence. i've was the best guy in the
2:31 am
newsroom in places i will not name. it made me think i could actually do this. much better than being the youngest person at the new york "new york times."e >> next question. >> [indiscernible] [laughter] >> thank you. a lot of this election, a lot of the political coverage on television, has been based on
2:32 am
pontificating that goes on every day and night on the cable stations. and, to a large extent, someone mentioned earlier, i forget the name of the guy i knew very well, but he was a washington post reporter who went out -- >> you are talking about david. >> yes. he talked to voters. do you think there is a basic weakness in the fact that much of the coverage is being done by, or at least much of the information is being dispensed by people who sit on their duffs in tv studios, do not do a
2:33 am
thing about communicating on the grass-roots level of people, and our opining day and night and giving the news election to the people in that way? >> ok. that is the end. >> i agree. i think so. when you get a call to go on television, you want to go on television. the question i want to make sure i answer is how do i know what i know. a lot of people on television could not answer that question. it is a lot of mythology and conventional wisdom. >> and pulled reading. >> some polls, i think that is information. you can cite polls to make certain arguments. some of the arguments get a little lofty. >> let me thank everybody for being so patient and being such
2:34 am
a good audience. one failure we have had today is my 3.5 year-old grandson is sound asleep. i will have to do better next time. thank you, panelists. [applause] >> when nation's chief and trade, and china has cheated, i will finally do something the president has not been able to do, which is labeled them a manipulator. >> we have brought more court cases against china in one term than the previous a administration did in two. we have been winning those cases. >> wednesday, president obama and mitt romney meet in their first presidential abate -- debate. watch and engage with c-span. we have a live debate preview at 7:00 p.m. eastern. both candidates on screen the entire debate. on c-span 2, multiple cameras.
2:35 am
follow online at >> republican representative steve king is being challenged by the democrat. up next is there debate. -- their debate. >> this is the iowa debate. here is the moderator. >> good evening. welcome to christ chapel.
2:36 am
this is the fourth district congressional debates between republican steve king and a democrat christie vilsack. we are broadcasting this debate to 2/3 of the state of iowa. >> by sir mason city and much of north east i was. we are joined on the panel tonight by the chair of the mass communications department here at northwestern college. >> also, dan greene, a staff writer for the northwest iowa read you. >> those from northwestern college students, our readers and viewers, will help you make an informed choice. >> let's start by meeting the candidates for the fourth district congressional seat. steve king is a third time a congressman. christie is the former first lady of iowa. now the you have had a chance to meet the candidates, it is time to hear from them. each candidate will get 90
2:37 am
seconds a piece. we flipped a coin to see who goes first. >> thank you so much. thank you to northwestern for having us here. i am running for congress for one reason, and to make sure people can continue to live in small towns in this district, towns much like the one we are sitting in right now. it is based on innovation, education, and connection. i want to make sure we build a work force with are really strong educational facilities and programs. i want to make sure we build on what we have already done. i want to make sure we build the connections that we need, that we finish highway 20, that we finish short rail and we connect every college in community in this state with high speed internet. my dad always said that the farmers are doing well we're
2:38 am
all doing well. this is just as true today as it was back in the 1950's. i want to commit this rededicate this debate to the farmers of this district. we did i want to dedicate this debate to the farmers of this district. they no longer will have opportunities. there are leaders to are worried about the pell grants. >> thank you for hosting this. this is a place of wanted to come for a debate. i appreciate the atmosphere here just for a conversation. there is a lot of intensity. we have built our lives here. there are four generations of kings that live in this district. we have three grown sons.
2:39 am
our roots go deep. they have only 91 father, one mother, one church, one school. our daughters and daughter-in- law's can all go to church and come home. the fight over the rope swing. when meghan has to set the timer in order that they do not fight over the rope swing, i know life is as good as it can get. i started a business in 1975 that has been a foundation for me. when i was nominated i said i will go to all 286 towns all the way to missouri. i did. i am here to tell you i've got to all 382 towns in the 39 counties. i live here. my roots are here. they are going to stay here. >> thank you.
2:40 am
each candidate has one minute to answer the question. each will they get 30 seconds of rebuttal time. i have the option to ask a follow-up question of my own. each candidate gets 30 seconds ap's to answer my follow up. we'll also be taking questions on twitter. as you watch this debate, log onto twitter. use the handle ktivelections. this comes from my colleague. >> our national debt topped $16 trillion earlier in the month. for years we heard candidates campaigned on platforms of reducing the national debt only to see little action in washington d.c.. if you are elected, what would
2:41 am
you do to help reduce our debt? >> i'll continue down the pack i have been on. i have long pushed to bring a balanced budget to the house of representatives. it took several years to get that done. i am asking mitt romney to call for a mandate to pass a balanced budget amendment out of the house and senate. it is not going to be accomplished with the configuration we have today. you need to send constitutional fiscal conservatives to congress to join me. there are 10 votes out there simply that save $17.40 trillion. we would also have eliminated our national debt. it takes that kind of conviction to tighten things down. i record shows that. thank you. >> if you are elected, what would you do to reduce our national debt?
2:42 am
>> it depends on balance. we balance. we need targeted spending. congressman king has talked about a balanced budget which i think is a gimmick. congress could get into a room right now and balance the budget. congressman king has had 10 years to balance the budget and he hasn't done it. when he came into office, the that was it six -- was $6 trillion. i think he could have come together in town bipartisan support. i think he had the opportunity to balance the budget and instead he was involved in two wars which he did not pay for, also he gave tax cuts to people who make more than a million dollars and didn't pay for medicare part d. i think he has a lot to answer for and i think he could have done that and didn't. [applause] >> congressman, your thoughts?
2:43 am
>> when nancy pelosi, who is a strong sponsor of her, our national debt was $8.6 trillion. when she joined up with barack obama, they added an additional $five trillion in debt, which accumulated under the pelosi- obama era. i'm crop -- i am glad to know i have more power than both of them put together and i have much more power over this deficit. [applause] >> can you put that increase in the national debt on barack obama and nancy pelosi alone? >> can you put the increase in national debt on barack obama and nancy pelosi alone? >> know, -- no. congressman king has been in
2:44 am
congress for 10 years. i have a plan to make sure i can convince landowners to pass their land from one generation to the next and in sent landowners to help young farmers get started. one of the most important things we could be doing right now which congress has not done is pass the farm bill. >> thank you. our next question -- our next question comes from the staff writer for the northwest iowa review. your question will go to christie vilsack. >> the national unemployment rate has been 8%. iowa's unemployment rate rose to 5.5%. what areas do you see right for
2:45 am
job growth? how deep lead to foster job but to lower unemployment and benefit our state? >> i talked a little bit about that in my interjection in terms of connection, animation, and also education. i see the opportunity to create lairs of the economic opportunity in small towns and help recreate the middle-class. i have seven or eight plans i have been talking around the districts for the last year and a half, but one of them, i would like to speak to right now -- making sure we create another layer of a bio economy.
2:46 am
we did great job of grenoble feel ed wynn, but we need to create products in small businesses that employ 50, 30, 60 people, and that are creating fuel from cars from soybeans. we can make anything from corn and wheat to create small businesses that will rely on the product from the community and continue to grow small businesses so we can make this case to our children that they can come back here and live. [applause] >> same question to you, congressman king. what would you do to promote job growth in iowa? >> i served in the iowa senate and the unemployment rate was up 2%. that's a full employment economy.
2:47 am
i've gone to work like a lot of other people in northern and western iowa and i have advocated and what was said during the farm crisis and '80s. we need a value-added agriculture. all wealth comes from the land. once you understand about the global economy and the national economy, you can really understand the iowa economy. we have done very well here. i have said one of the early people supporting the economy and that has added more dollars per acre. the value of that bag products is $24 billion. at land was $64 billion. now it's over $200 billion. we traded a tremendous amount of wealth. let's keep it up and keep taxes low and predictable and have less government regulation and intrusion in our lives. [applause]
2:48 am
>> you have 30 seconds to respond. >> there has been a lot of gridlock in congress and as a result we have not been able to get much done. my energy policy involves making sure [inaudible] short term, long term, medium- term growth for energy. i just want to make sure everybody knows i will be a consistent champion for wind and virtual field in this district and congressman king
2:49 am
has not been. [applause] >> congressman king, your response? >> i happen to be the american
2:50 am
went it industry champion designated by the wind energy association. [applause] i've supported by the renewable fuels industry across the board, so far as i know. we are the number one renewable energy producing district in all of america. when you add the other counties going east to make this new district, we will easily be the number one renewable energy producing district and i have been part of that. i am proud of what has been accomplished by your investment in your risk.
2:51 am
let's keep that up. [applause] >> the next question comes from our panel at northwestern college. >> [inaudible] according to the state data center of iowa, latina's make up 5.2% of the state's population. four counties in the fourth district have latino populations of more than 10%. five other counties have a population of more than 5%. congressman king, what is your plan to deal with illegal immigration while still making iowa a warm and welcoming place for new immigrants? >> we need to remember we are all god's children created in his image. there has to be dignity provided for all human beings. but the united states than any other nation, we have to have a border. you don't protect the border and decide who comes and goes, there you are not -- you are not a nation at all. at the center of this is the rule of law. it's one of the essential pillars of american exceptional some. most of the laws that we need
2:52 am
are out there and i would add one more to it -- it's called the new idea act. the acronym stands for illegally, deduction, elimination act. brings the irs into the enforcement. this piece of legislation gives the employer safe harbor if they use --- if they use e- legal. hopefully i can finish in the orbital period -- in the rubble. >> what is your plan to deal with illegal immigration while making my way or mad welcoming place for emigrants? >> we need to make sure we secure our borders to make sure we don't have people coming across, guns or drugs coming across illegally. we need to make sure lots of citizens get a first chance of jobs. but we to make sure people have a pathway to citizenship. if someone is willing to die for their country, someone is willing to work hard at their school, they have an opportunity to become a citizen of this country. i know because i have talked to a lot people in this area how important it is to have a thriving economic community here. people in this county have told me how important the emigrants are to them and they have told me to have talked to congressman king to talk -- to tone down his rhetoric. when he speaks on national television, he is often embarrassing s and i was when he talks about emigrants as if they are straight cats or dogs. i need we to make sure we do everything we can to make sure we can because they're a very important part of our economy.
2:53 am
[applause] >> congressman king, how do you respond? >> there is not much to speak to there. i just remind us all it's important we shut off the bleeding at the border, that we shut off the job as magnet, that we preserve and protect the rule of law, and if you set up a pathway to citizenship, you are rewarding of lawbreakers. when you do that, you get more of lawbreakers. we cannot be a country with an eroded rule of law. i will preserve it and mrs. vilsack is for amnesty. [applause] >> strong words on both sides. how do you respond to what congressman king said about you? >> i think again that people are willing to die for the country, they should have an
2:54 am
opportunity. when people break the law, they go to the end of the line, they pay fine, but i don't think -- at its very important we make sure we make people feel welcome here because there is economic opportunity for them and the people in this district have told me, the farmers and people are processing eggs and hogs and dairy farmers, they need these people. they respect the immigrant to work for them and they want them to feel welcome here. >> thank you. [applause] >> i am going to exercise my moderator rights here -- what do we do about the undocumented immigrants, those who have grown up in this state or any midwest take you have been educated in our schools and to have assimilated very positively into the state?
2:55 am
>> when congress doesn't do its job, another branch of government steps in. that is with the president did when he offered an opportunity to young people who were born in this country, who through no fault of their own came here. they need a pass to citizenship and we need comprehensive immigration in this country. congressman king has had the opportunity to do that in his last 10 years in congress and he has not done that. i'm willing to find compromise. i'm the kind of person who can do that and i'm willing to make those tough decisions when i go to washington. [applause] >> if those people i talked about, the undocumented workers are here, should they stay here? >> i know one of the things that echoed in my ear was when congress doesn't do its job. that is barack obama's statement. here he defies the constitution and does what he sees fit.
2:56 am
that is the rule of law i talked about in my opening component of this discussion. what to do with people whose roots go deep here, as some who are not aware there are breaking the law when they came here, that's for after we restore the rule of law. if we do, we will never restore the rule of law. [applause] >> when we come back, our panel focuses on a farm bill. plus, i had into the audience to take questions from -- i go into the audience to take questions from the students. are watching the fourth annual congressional debate. we will be right back. ♪ >> welcome back to the fourth district congressional debate live from christ chapel on the northwestern campus.
2:57 am
we thought was only fair since we regret the college to take questions from northwestern college students themselves. this is a junior at northwestern and she will be reading a question from another soon is a bit of that question but could not be with us to cut. >> i would like to ask a question about student loans and the fact that so many kids are having trouble getting them and so many are defaulting. what can you do about that? >> thank you for asking. it's the number one question i hear on college campuses. how do we make sure there is enough money to be borrowed? one of my answers is, a student debt, graduating from college with a $40,000 debt you are carrying with you, i would ask you to remember that your share of the national debt is $52,488 today. that is something we all have to carry. when you add these to the loan debt to that, it gets to be
2:58 am
quite high. i challenge you, because we're all in this together, is to do a good job of shopping for the best return on your tuition/grant dollars. that's the best thing that can happen to keep tuition rates low. the federal government has taken over all the student loans, so they essentially have a monopoly on the student loan program. i would like to keep that in to the private-sector so they can keep that competition. taxpayers are subsidizing the interest on student loans and that will get more radical to do as we get deeper into this national debt. [applause] >> it the same question to you -- how do you handle the student loan crisis? >> part of the plan is to make sure we fund held grants. i spoke with faa leaders who talked about how hard it would be for them to go back to the farm or start a business if they
2:59 am
could not get pell grants. they would have to go access debt and they were very concerned about that. i'm in favor of taking care of pell grants and we have low interest loans and we can pay them back commensurate to that kind of problems they have. if, like me, you became a teacher or public servant, you would be able to pay them back at a lower rate. i'm very much in favor of doing everything we can to make sure everybody has access to college. congressman king it voted for the ryan bill twice and that would have cut billions of dollars out of the education program. i think it's a real problem for him. >> congressman king, is that a problem for you? [applause] >> you heard a partially
3:00 am
informed response. there is a projection of what pell grant to do to increase over the year. the rise in budget tiles that down to make sure they are there for all students coming to the future, yet does not cut them. it says we want them to be solvent. that's a clear basis of the facts. i have supported paul grant along the way.
3:01 am
3:02 am
3:03 am
3:04 am
3:05 am
3:06 am
3:07 am
3:08 am
3:09 am
3:10 am
3:11 am
3:12 am
3:13 am
3:14 am
3:15 am
3:16 am
3:17 am
3:18 am
3:19 am
3:20 am
3:21 am
3:22 am
3:23 am
3:24 am
3:25 am
3:26 am
3:27 am
3:28 am
3:29 am
3:30 am
3:31 am
3:32 am
3:33 am
3:34 am
3:35 am
3:36 am
3:37 am
3:38 am
3:39 am
3:40 am
3:41 am
3:42 am
3:43 am
3:44 am
3:45 am
3:46 am
3:47 am
3:48 am
3:49 am
3:50 am
3:51 am
3:52 am
3:53 am
3:54 am
3:55 am
3:56 am
3:57 am
3:58 am
3:59 am
4:00 am
4:01 am
4:02 am
4:03 am
4:04 am
4:05 am
4:06 am
4:07 am
4:08 am
4:09 am
4:10 am
4:11 am
4:12 am
4:13 am
4:14 am
4:15 am
4:16 am
4:17 am
4:18 am
4:19 am
4:20 am
4:21 am
4:22 am
4:23 am
4:24 am
4:25 am
4:26 am
4:27 am
4:28 am
4:29 am
4:30 am
4:31 am
4:32 am
4:33 am
4:34 am
4:35 am
4:36 am
4:37 am
4:38 am
4:39 am
4:40 am
4:41 am
4:42 am
4:43 am
4:44 am
4:45 am
4:46 am
4:47 am
4:48 am
4:49 am
. . . .
4:50 am
4:51 am
4:52 am
4:53 am
4:54 am
4:55 am
4:56 am
4:57 am
4:58 am
4:59 am
5:00 am
we also want to thank our panelists and jennifer. thank you also to the public policy institute, and the staff of the cultural and civic center. the candidates will debate one more time this election season, the third and final debate on wednesday, october 10 at 7:00 wood university.oul
5:01 am
the debate will air on wusa on october 12, friday at 7:00 p.m.. the debate is open to the public. we want to thank you tonight for watching. thank you for listening. thank you for being here. good night. [applause] >> when nations treat in trade in china has treated, i will do something that the president has not been able to do. and label them a currency manipulator. >> we have brought more trade cases against china in one term than the previous administration did in two.
5:02 am
we have been winning those. >> wednesday, president obama and mitt romney meet in their first presidential debate. watch and engage with c-span, with their lives to be a preview at 7:00 p.m. eastern, followed by two ways to watch the debate at 9:00 p.m.. on c-span, both debates for the entire debate. falling, your reaction, calls, e mails and tweets. follow our live coverage on c- span, c-span radio and online at >> see the first presidential debate tomorrow night, live on c-span, c-span radio and online at watch and engage. in a few moments, our coverage of debate to run the country continues. with the senate debate in massachusetts. and in less than hour, last night's senate debate in nebraska.
5:03 am
on a "washington journal"this morning, we will examine the health care law that mr. romney signed into law when he was governor of massachusetts. we will also be joined by host reliable sources to a. the use of social media in the presidential campaign. we will discuss the college board report on how high school students are doing on the sat's. our guest is college board vice- president. "washington journal" is live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. several bloody events today they did here on c-span, the new america foundation -- several live events today here on c- span. before that at noon on c-span 2, the urban institute look so
5:04 am
what may happen to into vaults individual taxes. and the state of education, live on c-span 3 at 1:00 p.m. eastern. >> i have all of the channels. house, senate, plus book reviews, speeches. if i know a bill is coming up on the floor, i watch which shall i want to see. because i have them all. if there's a speech and if you have covered, or a book review, i am going to watch that. what i want to find out something, that has some value to it, that is like to be one of the first places i look. i am obviously a public broadcasting fan.
5:05 am
i watched those channels. i probably have five or 10 channels i go to. it will include all of the c-span channels. >> and david watches c-span. brought to you as a public service by your television provider. >> now the second of procter debate. in the senate candidate in massachusetts, scott brown and elizabeth warren. this one hour debate courtesy of the university of massachusetts, and the boston herald, moderated by david gregory. >> moderator of meet the press and welcome to the center of massachusetts co-sponsored by the university and the boston
5:06 am
herald. i am joined by the two candidates, miss elizabeth warren and a senator scott brown. welcome to both of you. a thank you for being here. just a note about the rules, basically there are none. no set time limits. what i hope is a healthy discussion of the important issues facing this country and in this race. i can't been -- i champion the to a few -- the two of you. i would like to begin where it seems this campaign has been, in the area of the personal. some personal friction and issues between the two of you. ms. warren, i want to start with questions about your native american heritage. there seems to be a lot of questions about this. i want to see if we can clear these things up. you have listed yourself as a
5:07 am
minority in a faculty directory in 1986. you continue to miss -- to list yourself in that directory until 1995. do you consider such a minority? and if not, is there any other reason for some kind of benefit that you list yourself in such a directory? >> i have answered this question many, many times. it starts the fact from the dow was born until the day my mother died, if she told me -- it starts at the fact of from the day i was born until the dimon mother died, she told me who we are and my family. i have never used the information about our native american heritage to get any advantage. not to apply to college, not to apply to law school, and not to get hired for any job. i was -- i listed myself as native american. i was listed there. it is part of why am. >> you consider yourself a minority?
5:08 am
>> i consider myself as having a native american background. >> senator brown, you have a web site created by your campaign that says we are getting to know the real as a bit of warren. if it allows people to check whether she is a hypocrite or a fake indian. who is the real elizabeth warren? is she a liar? is that your judgment? >> you'd have to ask her who she actually is. i think we need to reflect back and talk about this campaign is really about, which is obviously the jobs in the economy. part of this race is also integrity and character. if you look back and see what we are talking about here, no one is questioning what her parents told her when she was younger or through that timeframe. when she was asked by "the boston herald" why she was being towed to as a native american, she said she did not
5:09 am
know. and then after misleading the papers, she said that she self- reported. she never answered why she said that. she has also said that as time goes on, i cannot change of who i am. that is the nature of her commercials. but as with noticed -- as we noticed throughout life, she was white. then she changed her nationality to native american. as she was being considered for recruitment as a result of that director, she was being recruited to ivy league schools. at the pinnacle for success when she became tenured at harvard, she was changed back to being white. when she says she cannot change who she is, she did it twice. >> if you have any evidence, at all, senator, if to suggest that ms. warren benefited or was hired because she was a native american minority? >> the real issue is what is she telling the people.
5:10 am
>> that was a direct question. if you suggested that she is being dishonest. i want to know if -- >> the best way to answer that is for her to release her personnel records. i released 32 years of my military records. i think the fact that she has not least those records of speaks volumes. >> are you hiding something? >> no, i am not. the questions about character, i answer the questions about how i was born and what i learned growing up. i never use it for college, law school, or to get a job. others have backed me up. the boston globe interviewed two dozen people on this. they said in print that he voted for scott brown. it would not know about it until years later. i want to say something about character, since that is the issue. i think character is how you
5:11 am
live your life. and the daughter of a janitor who ended up as a professor at harvard law school and working for the president of united states, i am proud of the two children i have raised and the husband i have had for 32 years and by three grandchildren. i have taught school. i have taught a generation of students. hello, occasionally, inspired a few of them. i have -- but i hope, occasionally, inspired a few of them. i have worked hard for 30 years to meet the legal system just a little bit fairer for people. i think that is a good thing. >> have you mobled this issue in the campaign? >> i wish i had been faster in answering the question. but the truth is the truth. i believe my mother. i cannot imagine what kind of test of character would be to say that my mother lied to me from the day i was born until the day she died. >> senator, is this disqualifying? >> no, of course not. there is no question she is a qualified academic and a good teacher.
5:12 am
>> do you doubt in any way her credentials as a scholar that would have led her to be hired? >> no. but i do question the fact that she misled the voters off for over five weeks, saying that she had no idea how harvard came to know that she was a native american. she, in fact, self-reported. no one is questioning what our parents tell us as we are growing up. as you grow older, you have an affirmative obligation when you are making a disclosure, such as that, when you're taking something that is really meant for somebody who has been truly disadvantaged by years of discrimination, i think it is something you really need to double check on. >> on this point that senator brown is now raising, it is wrong. i misheard a question at a very noisy press conference. i came back and answer it when i understood it. and that is it. to try to turn this into
5:13 am
something bigger is just wrong. >> let me ask you, senator brown, because a question of your own credibility has been raised. you talked about having secret meetings with kings and queens and crime ministers. your campaign said he misspoke, but this is something you said on multiple occasions. are you guilty of exaggeration here? >> no. i was trying to make a point that we're talking about the economic issues in other countries, and you have met a lot of the same people i have met. they talk about jobs and the economy and the fact that the number one thing we need to focus on is jobs in the economy. i never met the poorest performer, either. it is about presenting -- the poorest farmer, either. let me talk about mistakes. i have made mistakes. before i got elected, i said my daughters are available on
5:14 am
national tv. that was a pretty big mistake. i am still paying for that one. the difference between i make a mistake, i corrected. i immediately corrected. professor warren, when she made a mistake and misled the voters of massachusetts, it is not that she did not hear the question. this went on for five weeks of the media asking her specifically how they came to know that she was a native american. >> he always ask you professor warren. you think he is trying to cast you as an elitist professor in the eyes of the voters? does that bother you? >> it does not bother me. i worked very hard for this and it does not bother me. >> the boston globe reported she is proud of being a professor. whenever i see my professors from school, i say hello professor so-and-so.
5:15 am
she has earned the title. she is a sitting professor. >> you have both earned work as attorneys. you have talked about clients who have represented. you have released a list of those clients that have come on. senator brown, to my knowledge, you did not. >> i resisted about a week ago. in a real estate attorney representing small banks. >> as far as i'm aware, in terms of the lawyers that i know, and i know quite a few, legal work entails becoming an advocate for clients, not necessarily an advocate for a particular policy position. is there a reason you should doubt the other base and declines you represented? >> let's start with that disclosure part spirit i have not seen a list of senator brown's clients. all i know is that senator brown said at a conference last week that somehow over the last 25 years will he has been out there working in the public interest and representing people here in massachusetts that he also is representing banks and mortgage companies.
5:16 am
but i have not seen a list of those clients and i did not realize it had been made public. is that right? there's a public list of all the clients that sender brown had and the work he did? >> professor, with all due respect, the only person is required to provide a list is you when you got to provided on a yearly basis to harvard. when asked there is a list, you said, no, there is no list. she is apparently released it tonight. i made it very clear last week. if people know that i'm a real estate attorney. there is an office in my home. i represent a few small banks. i want to talk about clients. it is important. you ask if it is important. it is. the routine that professor warren has been saying throughout this campaign, she is out there representing the little guy. she is out there representing
5:17 am
the workers. there is a company that she represented in an effort to deny union workers there benefits. she got paid a five figure salary. she was on the side when no one was watching. she chose to side with the steel conglomerate. she got it almost one-quarter of a million dollars to represent a large insurance company, one of the largest in our country. she will say she was setting up a trust. there is no way a travelers insurance is going to set up a trust and work for the victims when, in fact, they are paying her as a hired gun. >> have you released what exactly you did for those clients? >> i already said it publicly. i do not know how much more public i have to get. in the real estate attorney. i do closing. i also work with the army.
5:18 am
>> here is my follow-up question. do you believe that, as an advocate, as an attorney, she was actually adopting the positions as she took four or was she making an argument on behalf of a klein, just as you would do as an attorney. there is a distinction. >> that is a great question. when the lights are not on and the media is not looking, you have a choice. she had the choice to take this client. she got paid almost one quarter of a million. >> you're not suggesting lawyers agree with every client they take on. is that fair? >> in this particular instance -- >> it is a pointed question. >> i think attorneys have a choice. they can deny them. >> ms. warren, your response, please. >> how to start with what senator brown is trying to do here. he just keeps making charges. he just keeps making charges. let's start with the question about the cases that he says i have represented.
5:19 am
i am a teacher. i have been out there as a consumer advocate. i've been writing books. i have been working in a field. from time to time have taken on a client. i have done it because there was an important legal issue at stake. for me, it was about protecting individuals. was about protecting employees. it was about protecting homeowners. it was about making sure people did not get run over by banks and the system really continue to work for them. that is what i did. i have done it through -- i did it with senator kennedy for 15 years. i wrote the books and i even went to the united states supreme court. for senator brown to say that my work hurts asbestos victims is just simply not only not true, it is in exactly the wrong direction.
5:20 am
i have been working for asbestos victims of for years. including going to the nine state supreme court to try to protect a half a billion dollar judgment for them and to try to make sure there is a system set up so that people who have asbestos-related diseases, which continue to show up year after year gets in someone's body, they do not know for sure whether they have it or not, until sometimes years later -- a way for those people to be compensated. the asbestos victims have stood up and said, senator brown is wrong. and he has crossed a line. these are the people whose fathers have died, whose uncle is have died, whose cousins have died, and the day are the ones who are being attacked by senator brown now. >> as a consumer activist, was
5:21 am
it a mistake to take on these corporate clients? >> absolutely not. i would do it again because what i was out there doing was trying to help protect the asbestos victims. the asbestos workers and know that. the lawyers for the asbestos victims have described senator brown's charges as deliberately dishonest. even the boston globe has described of them as misleading. i was out there working for asbestos victims. if i had the chance, i would do it again. >> with all to respect, a travelers insurance co. is not going to pay a quarter of a million dollars to be a hired gun to work for the victims. that is a laughable. >> can we stay on the question? this was an insurance company obverses an insurance company. two insurance companies were fighting.
5:22 am
if one of them won, then the asbestos victims would have a chance to get another half billion dollars in payments and there would be a device to pay them overtime. >> once again, with all due respect, the victims of the asbestos cases, 1/40 of what she got paid. it is laughable to think that she was working for the victims to set up a trust. a lot of them have not been paid to this debate. let's assume that she is correct on the asbestos matter. the other one is a whole different situation. in a union member. there's only one person in this race that has been fighting for union issues and that is made. if she had an opportunity to side with the little guy. and actually worked. once again come when the lights were not a shining and people were not watching, she made a choice to side with the
5:23 am
conglomerate and got paid a five at the figure salary to deny the health care benefits. >> a final point on this. >> senator brown, once again, is making things up. the reality is that in the case of the poll company that he is talking about here and a black long, that everyone was going to get paid. it was a question of protecting a particular legal principle, but everyone was going to get paid. let's be clear. senator brown is the one who is not working with the unions. the unions have endorsed me. the asbestos workers said i was on their side, not as senator brown. the coal workers said i was on their side, not senator brown. he cannot change the fact. >> 1 follow. when she was advocating for that, if that legislation --
5:24 am
that ever did not prevail. had she prevailed, they would have unraveled the benefits. >> making up things up again. >> i want to talk about national politics here. i can tell you, living in washington and traveling around the country, i think you both know here in massachusetts, there is such a disgust with washington because of dysfunction and washington does not work. the question about bipartisanship here, senator, let me ask you this. you said a mitt romney that he is one of your strongest and earliest backers. he said it comes to dealing with the economic issues, there is no one i would trust more than governor romney. would you be a reliable ally of a president romney? >> i think he pointed out in your initial comment about this functionality in washington. when i went down there, i thought it was dysfunctional. when i got there, it was even worse. it still is. if you see it everyday. in speaking to the independent voters of massachusetts and being that independent of voice. i spoke about 50% with my party and 50% with the other party.
5:25 am
that is a lot different than what professor warren would do. i need not work for anybody. i cannot work for president obama, mitt romney, mitch, harry reid -- i work for the people of massachusetts. i am named the least partisan senator and united states senate. >> it is striking the youth support governor running for president, i assume. >> as i said, when it comes to dealing with the economic issues, absolutely. >> you would be a reliable ally? >> it depends on with the issue is. >> on his economic plan. you said there's no one better. >> i also would like to read the bill. because i do. a lot of people to not to read the bills. i want to vote. i am a reliable vote for the bill. that is evidenced by my voting
5:26 am
record. >> it is striking that we look to your campaign ads, is president obama that you see touting your work. we could not find any instance with you with governor romney having made any campaign appearances with him. there is an appearance york distancing yourself from governor romney to appeal to voters, specifically here in massachusetts. being " -- being too close to him may be a problem. [applause] >> as you know, in the second- most bipartisan member. i take pride in that. i was also proud to stand with him when we did the hiring veterans bill. of course, i will stand with the president. when he does something well, i praise him. >> you are not assessing yourself from governor romney? >> he is all over the country. i am here in massachusetts. when i said he will head of the economic issues as well, we certainly need to focus on his economic issues.
5:27 am
in a $16 trillion national debt we have runaway deficits each and every year. we need to have the people down there and focus in a bipartisan matter. we do not need blood and teeth in the streets. we need people will find solutions. >> in this state, the legacy of senator kennedy is well known. part of that legacy is being able to compromise and work with republicans. can you name republicans in the senate that you are able to work with on big issues that the country faces? >> probably richard would be one that comes to mind. >> not going to be there. >> that is a problem. >> let me ask the question. are there any republicans that will be in the senate that you
5:28 am
fill you can work with substantively and compromise with? >> it depends on what the subject matter is. let me give you an example. on the question of fannie and freddie -- fannie mae and freddie mac. the republicans have said across the spectrum that we need to revise fannie and freddie. i think there are wrong. at the that is an issue i think -- i think they are right. at the that is an issue i thik -- think i could work with virtually every republican in the united states senate because it is an important issue for financing mortgages of people across this country. that is something i can do. i have actually had experience working across the aisle. when i first went to washington during the financial crisis in 2008, i was the head of a bipartisan commission.
5:29 am
republicans and democrats. we took on some of the most difficult and challenging issues facing the country. we made reports and recommendations every 30 days. i am very proud to say that about half of our recommendations were unanimous we started with a basic principle -- were unanimous. we start with a basic principle we could agree on. we work from there to build something that was useful. at the end of the day, the reason i'm in this race is not about partisanship. it is about working families. i will work with anyone -- democrat, republican, libertarian, vegetarian, if they will work for the american family. >> what will be one of your first vote -- one your first votes would be to cast a vote for a majority or minority leader. would you vote for mitch mcconnell to be the leader of the republicans? >> our like to respond to what you said. >> a simple yes or no question. >> off our like to have a chance to respond and i will answer your question. with regard to working with somebody, was working with any
5:30 am
person on opposite side of the aisle, she cannot reference one person except someone who is retiring. a truly bipartisan person. i have a history of working across the aisle. 54% with my party. professor warren would be 100%. when it comes to dealing with the majority or minority leader, i wanted to be clear to mitch mcconnell that i am disgusted as to what is going on down there. he has a lot of work to do to earn my vote. i do not vote for him or harry reid. when i walked in i can vote however i want. you've seen it. you have evidence of it. there is no evidence that professor warren would be a voting and working across the aisle. very few members of the democratic party right now do it. thank goodness we have people
5:31 am
like me and others like me. senators know, senator lugar. there are other people down there who can actually get things done. >> undecided. >> i have made it very clear. >> i would like to say two things. when senator brown talks here in massachusetts about how very bipartisan he is and how very independent he is, he is sure not say the same thing when it goes around the country raising money in the senate. [applause] he goes around this country and what he says to people around the country is that they should contribute to his campaign because if he is reelected, that increases the odds that the republicans will control the senate and he can block president obama's agenda [applause] let's just be honest about what is going on. >> given his vote, to believe his goal is to block and a stretch president obama's agenda?
5:32 am
>> fought on economic issues, i absolutely do. in fact, i can do the examples. we had a quarter of a million people unemployed here in the commonwealth of massachusetts last fall. president obama put forward a jobs bill. the first jobs bill would have supported 22,000 jobs here in the commonwealth. senator brown voted in lockstep with every other republican, no. and we did not get the jobs bill. a few weeks later, there was a jobs bill to prevent the layoffs of teachers and firefighters of police officers all across this commonwealth and this country. senator brown voted in lockstep with the republicans and voted no. we did not fit that bill through. >> if i could respond. >> third, there was a third jobs bill. would have supported 11,000 jobs, mostly in construction to repair transportation that we needed it and as senator brown voted in lockstep with all the other republicans and it just to put icing on the cake, he voted
5:33 am
against unemployment insurance extension 16 times for people who were out of work. senator brown has made clear where he stands. [applause] >> thank you. first of all, she is obviously misstating the facts. these are rejections by both democrats and republicans. [applause] if you're going to come on my record, i would at least have to refer to it. excuse me. i'm not listed in your classroom. please let me respond. [cheers and boos] with regard to the jobs bill, it was rejected in a bipartisan matter.
5:34 am
they raised over $450 million in new taxes. in the unemployment benefits, there was no one that lost. my mom was on welfare. i remember it being there as a safety net for people. we also try to find a way to pay for it. professor warren would have voted against it because we had a compromise that the president put forth and she said she would not have supported the compromise by the only extending the tax policy that has been in place for 10 years, but also to the unemployment benefits that we had feared she would have voted against that because she wanted to raise taxes on some of the folks with in that bracket. we actually did it. no one lost any benefits. i was proud to vote for the bill. as you know, when you are in washington, you have to go back and forth and negotiate final solution to the bill. >> let me extend this period there will be more discussion about how to create the jobs. i want to talk about the fiscal cliff and the debt. the simpson-bowles commission
5:35 am
which has gotten so much discussion across the country, they came up with the plan that said, look. we have to cut $4 trillion of the debt. here is how we are going to do it. if we will cut spending, but we're also going to deal with the tax code. more people should pay taxes, they say. we should eliminate some of these exemptions and deductions. we will get $1 trillion from them and in the process of doing that, we're going to lower rates for everybody and about 10% of that we will pay down the debt. why is that not a common sense, practical solution? you have not said if you will vote down. >> these are bills -- we have a lot of great ideas. but we cannot get them to the floor. >> i think evidence, we keep an open mind.
5:36 am
we work with anybody of good will down there to make sure that we can get something done. as in a the president commission that studied. and you put a budget and did not do anything on that. we have not had a budget in the senate for four years. we need to get financially and order. >> an appropriate approach, if you of that kind of trade-off. $3 million in trading cuts. >> the note the problem is, every time they say in washington, people have a saying that is not raise taxes in washington. they raise taxes all the time. with a health care raising taxes. we do not have -- we have a theory, very serious spending problem in washington. the more money you give washington, ending more there will spend it. i am not going to be raising taxes on any american a middle
5:37 am
of a three. five-year recession. the foremost independent business group says that during the proposals the professor warren was to push will cut seventh hundred thousand jobs nationally -- i am trying to look of the proposals. but they are not going forward. they are talking about closing deductions and loopholes. i have already done that. that is something has to do how middle-class families. for what to do this, we want to do it right. you need to actually put them all on the table and sit down together and truly -- in a truly bipartisan manner. >> to be able to get them there and work with people on both sides of the i will. >> he does not want to talk about that he has signed a
5:38 am
right-wing blood never to raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires. that is the grover norquist pledge. [applause] >> wants to extend the bush tax cuts for everybody? >> that is right. and let us to watch how that is worked out. for example, the buffett rule. the idea that billionaires' should pay at least as much as -- in taxes as secretaries do. scott brown, along with every other republican voted no. oil subsidies, the oil companies made $137 billion in profits last year. and yes, when the vote, to get rid of the oil subsidies, senator brown the to group all of the other republicans to say no. we are going to let them keep the subsidies.
5:39 am
but it is just wrong. and then, the big boats. this is the amazing one produced about one month ago, and the question came about letting bush tax cuts expire, senator brown of voted to save -- said he would let taxes rise for 90% of the families in massachusetts and 97% of the small businesses. he would hold them hostage unless there were tons cuts 3 top 50%. >> -- unless there were tax cuts for the top 30%. >> on the question of some symbols, would you accept $3 trillion worth of spending cuts, as painful as they might be? if you got the revenue increases? what's the point of some symbols, some symbols is using a balanced approach. we must have a cuts and other
5:40 am
revenue increases. i completely agree with that. that is the right approach. as a moderate, sensible approach. not the approach with scott brown. he is trying to use the balanced approach, because he has put forward proposals to increase revenues. senator brock and i both submitted -- >>enator brown, respond to said.she >> i would like the opportunity to go one by one. if anybody thinks that by raising taxes on our energy producers well-off for savings in the middle of a three. five-year recession. it is not going to happen. there will pass off -- all of those off to our motors and, honors. everybody knows that.
5:41 am
if you want to have a comprehensive discussion about energy, then we should have it, cold, conservation, if true approach. issues against the keystone pipeline. it would help us stabilize our energy in this country. she is also against -- she is in favor of solar. let me talk about the balk rule. the buffett rule, it makes a great sound bite. one portion white, with a long buffet role in massachusetts days. when she is up there telling above everybody paying higher taxes -- she had the opportunity to pay higher taxes herself, and she did not to do that. number three, all of the criticism, every single one of
5:42 am
your criticisms about the not raising taxes, that is correct. i do not want to raise taxes on anyone in the middle of the three-point five-year recession, when i go to businesses, they did not say, please, take our money and bring it to washington. they say we have been taxed enough. we have been regulated enough. the only person who is a fiscal conservative is the. >> we will have a more of our discussion. we will take a break and be back with our debate in a few minutes. >> back in our united states senate debate. we have elizabeth warren and scott brown. we are talking about the economy generally how to create jobs. as baby issue. -- a big issue. i want to introduce mary kate.
5:43 am
i will turn it over to her. please take the mic and ask your question. >> good evening. i am a senior here at university of massachusetts. in may, will graduate in this very arena. i am not scared of growing up or going out into the real world. i am afraid i will not be able to find a job. my question for you is, if elected, what specific programs or policies will you propose or support to help students like me find jobs after graduation? >> a great question. i think the answer has but a short-term part of a long-term park. in the short term, we have been economy that is still struggling to recover. that shows up and lots of different ways. it is why i support the jobs bill. the president has proposed the jobs bill, it is part of this proposal for getting this job started. because a jobs bill will put paychecks in people's hands. and get work done that we need to get it done.
5:44 am
once we of death as paychecks in people's hands. they spend them in the local economy, they spend them with businesses, creating more demand. and that helps the economy get going. in the short run, i think exactly the right thing to do, and i was very disappointed when scott and the republicans blocked it. in the long run -- and never answered. and the answer is we have to invest in the future. we have to make this a great place to grow jobs. and the way i see that is, we make those investments in education, in roads, bridges, water, power, research, if the things that give us, all the energy going forward. so -- massachusetts is on the
5:45 am
cutting edge of what we can do in new energy, in a clean energy. in building, innovation and tack. we are doing it in a biotech. we are making the new advances for the whole rest of the country, for the whole rest of the world. we can't build it here in massachusetts. but to do that, we need a good parol parker. someone in washington who will be there to fight for us and invest in us. >> thank you for your question. and obviously, congratulations and the lot. we listen -- we live in one of the greatest countries of the world, and we live in one of the greatest states in the country. the challenges they are facing, the trouble all run massachusetts. people are concerned. they do not know what is next.
5:46 am
they do not know the tax policy will be. that results is plus people hiring, and looking to hire. diane is an unemployed mom of four. she is still trying to find a job. for the first time in her life, she is on food stamps. she troubles rubble looking for jobs. people are scared to hire. if the talks policies that are being pushed through that are the real factor. the united states chamber of commerce -- to other proposals being pushed by senator warren -- as a result of that, they are not willing to move forward and grow. i have been very active on that front. we just passed a bill called fraud funding. allows you to raise of 2 $1 million online using funders.
5:47 am
a new finance goal. a spread before the signing ceremony which the president signed the bill that allows veterans to get hired by people who are coming back from serving our country. many of our efforts. we have. the key is, in order to get these initiatives passed, we must work together to do it. cannot be taking and raising taxes and having more and more spending when we are at a $16 trillion debt. that is the biggest concern i have, because of that you are not going to be able to take back the debt. >> and of the issues in the economy is this question of immigration. >> believe that your position. chance to respond. i want to keep moving. immigration is really important.
5:48 am
i think you both know. it is one of the biggest regrets from the president that it did not get passed. we have a question on this very issue. >> still ahead. >> good evening. i am a business, finance management to enter the university. my family is from the dominican republic. the aid of 16 years old and was fortunate to become aggressive assent. for those young people who are not as fortunate as me, i want to know, if you support or oppose the dream act. engage tell us why or why not? >> the great act as an opportunity for the children of undocumented immigrants to get legal status in this country. senator brown, you have called that, let us be clear, you of called its close to amnesty or reform of amnesty. >> let me just say that --
5:49 am
congratulations on becoming a united states citizen. and let me tell you that i am in favor of legal immigration. i have been working on that in the oven state senate. [applause] is a form of amnesty. >> continue. >> thank you. we need to improve our legal immigration system. this is the difference between professor warren and me. she is in favor of drivers here illegally. she is not in favor of securing our borders. these are things that we are very different -- when it comes to the dream act, the things we can do? certainly. but we need to have the debate. they want to bring it up. push it through without any debate.
5:50 am
the key to getting anything done on immigration, i have been tried to do it. increasing quotas so we can do it legally. we cannot take the people you are legally and give them a head -- the people better be legally and give them a head to get above of. >> this is a big difference to the two of us 30 voted against the dream act, i would strongly support the dream act. i strongly believe in it. [applause] >> i also believe we need comprehensive immigration reform. i think of as following the law. we do cover debts of immigration reform, comprehensive besom reform. ready to follow the loss from enforce our borders. but we need to do immigration reform. and it needs drop-in and now. we cannot keep putting us off. it is not right. >> a lot to live for issues as quick as we can.
5:51 am
i think they are important. want to touch on foreign policy cured the war on afghanistan is drawn to a close. it is then laid up for united states troops to return,. ms. warren, i will start with you, what is an acceptable outcome to the war afghanistan? what is the nine states whose responsibility, even after united states troops returned? >> i think that we have always had difficulty with describing that. as a result, the 20 to get our troops about kurdistan. as for good as a mechanic, consistently as we can. >> would bring mom before? >> i think it is time to bring our troops, and to stop spending $2 billion a week in afghanistan. >> the net states does not have a responsibility any longer? >> -- united states does not have responsibility any longer?
5:52 am
>> having unrealistic goals and spending more money is the wrong approach. i just want to stay on of the spirit of three of my brothers served in the military. our service members are incredible. they will do anything they are asked to. there were card. they are resourceful. that means an open an obligation to put them out in harm's way, when we have clear goals in mind. when it is clear what they are going to do and how we are want to accomplish it. >> think you. as you know, i am still a colonel serving in the national guard. i ranking member. the ranking member of armed services, a homeland security. i take those roles very seriously. at the derecho sent as a senator and a soldier. and i supported the president's surge, and his timetable for withdrawal. i did not occur with the date, i think it shows our hand.
5:53 am
our goal is to make for the taliban and al-qaida did not join forces and export terrorism a rabid the area. pakistan has nuclear weapons. respectfully disagree. i will rely on the generals on the ground and our commander in chief as to when you want to bring our troops home. it is very difficult to get into hypothetical spirit of rely on the word the president and his generals. >> a couple of others in a lightning rod. who is your choice for supreme court justice? >> let me see here. it is a great question. i think justice scalia is a great choice, justice kennedy. justice kennedy is obviously very good. justice roberts. i think they are very qualified people.
5:54 am
>> that is the duty of being an independent. >> i do not need to pick one. i am proud of the once but we have. >> i think it would probably be elena kagen. >> let me ask you miss warren, i want to know why you in massachusetts has never elected a female senator or governor? >> i do not know. [laughter] >> no idea? does it trouble you? >> right now i am trying to do something about that. >> senator brown. do you think john kerry would be a good secretary of state?
5:55 am
>> yes. i do. i think he has a very good knowledge of world affairs. is the real leader on that issue. and i looked to his guidance. and when we are dealing with foreign issues, yes. i would. >>. two minutes. i want to do two important questions. this has been a hard fought race. in each show something that you admire about the other this morning? >> i think that senator brown has a lovely family. he does. [applause] >> and i agree with him when he voted for -- to get rid of the do not ask do not tell. i think that was right of him. i agree with him, very much. >> certainly, she is a very hard-working accomplished professor. and she is certainly very qualified. she is a very hard-working
5:56 am
family as well. as a matter of fact, i have heard from parents to of actually had their kids being taught by her, and they say she is wonderful. will do everything to mature that she can continue to be in that position. [laughter] [applause] -- i saved the most contentious for last. ms. warren, does bobby valentine deserve another year or should he be fired? >> i have such hopes for bobby valentine. i am still just and wounded mode on that one. >> should he stick around? or should he be fired? >> this is in the boston herald this morning. >> then i give him another year. >> i remember in the beginning
5:57 am
of the season, they said the red sox would win 90 games. that has not happened. it is been disappointing. i will leave it up to the red sox management. but certainly, we need to be better next year. >> will not commit one way or another? >> no. the need to work it out for themselves. >> we need to move to our closing statements. we will begin with senator brown. >> thank you. and thank you. think you to everyone who is here. obviously participating and listening. we are also watching -- i am from here. i grew up here. i am married a girl. besides from might marriage and the birth of my kids, being your senator has been the best thing in my life.
5:58 am
i have done exactly that. 50% with my party, 50% with the other. this election is about doing just that. there are real challenges right now. the challenges are getting our economy moving, our deficit, a tax, spending, national security. we need people down there who actually work together. that is what i have been doing. i need your vote. i cannot do this again. thank you very much for holding it this. [applause] >> thank you again. thank you for holding this. thank you for being here. i am not a professional politician. this is the first time i have run. i got into this because america's working families are just getting hammered. and washington is rigged to work for those who hire an army of
5:59 am
lobbyists and an army of lawyers. senator brown -- keas some good boats. but when it comes down to it, the hard votes, he stands with the millionaire's parity stance with the billionaires. he stands with big oil companies purity is not fair for people who are out of work. he is not there for women who want access. he is not there for seniors who need help paying for prescription drugs. i want to go to washington to be there to fight for working families and small businesses. that is what this is all about fort meade. >> elizabeth warren, thank you. scott brown, thank you very much. i am over here. do not forget to vote november 6. thank you ve m


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on